Apart
from Abraham and Moses, King David is certainly one of the main characters in
the Old Testament. Told principally in I & II Samuel and I Kings 2, we see
a king whose conquests united Israel
and Judah into one kingdom
and whose empire included Syria
and Hamath to the north, Moab,
Ammon to the east, Philistine to the west and Edom to the south. (II Samuel 8:
3-13; 10). Surely such a vast empire would leave immense archeaological
evidence.

The date normally ascribed to King David’s reign is 1005-970 BCE.
Although no one doubts the existence[a] of King
David, there is no archaeological evidence for his kingdom beyond his
existence. As
archaeologist John Laughlin noted:

[T]here
is little in the overall archaeological picture of the tenth century BC that
can be connected with David.[1]

Whatever evidence there is points to the fact that the story about the
granduer of David’s empire is a myth of a fictional golden age created by later
writers. Earlier discoveries which were touted as evidence of David’s feats
have been discredited. Perhaps the most well known, as described in the rose
tinted “biblical archaeology” book, The Bible as History, was the “discovery”
in 1867 by British explorer Charles Warren of the water shaft that runs into
the city from the Gihon spring, the one that was supposedly used by David in
his attack on Jerusalem. (II Samuel 5:8) [2] However
according to archaeologist Ronny Reich of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who
led the extensive digs in Jerusalem in the late 1990’s, the “Warren Shaft” as
it is now called, is a natural fissure in the rock that has nothing to do with
the Jerusalem water system or with David’s surprise attack. There is nothing
there dating from the time of David. There are only potteries dating to the
18th century BCE (Canaanite) and 8th century BCE (Israelite). The “Warren Spring”
is just one example of an archaeological dead end. [3] After 150
years of archeaological digs the is not a single piece of evidence of the
Davidic capital. [4]

What of David’s vast empire? It never existed. One would have expect to
find such a vast empire to be described by the neighbouring kingdoms. Yet there
is no description of any kind about any vast empire in Palestine during that time in the texts of
the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians. The extensive conquests narrated of
David would have required enormous infrastucture and manpower. Yet extensive
archaelogical studies concentrating on Judah
- David’s base - have shown that the Judah
of the tenth century BCE was sparsesly populated - only 5,000 inhabitants
including Jerusalem
- with no major urban centers. It consisted of Jerusalem
which was “no more than a typical highland village”, Hebron and about twenty small villages. [5]

This above findings explain why there is so no archaeological evidence
found for the tenth century empire of David. Judah was still remote and
underdeveloped. If David was indeed king, he was never king over the vast
regions described in the Bible. [6]

According
to the Bible, Solomon, David’s son and successor, who was king around 970-931
BCE, ruled over an even larger empire than this father. His vast kingdom spans
from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt (I Kings 4:21). Solomon’s
fame and influence spread far and wide. (I Kings 10:1) His diplomatic skills is
proven by his securing alliances with other nations such as Egypt (I Kings 3:1) and Tyre (I Kings 5). He was also known for his
massive architectural projects including the Temple
in Jerusalem (I
Kings 6) and the royal palace on Ophel (I Kings 7). He also improved on the
fortifications of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer
(I Kings 9:15). He also built 40,000 stalls of horses for his 14,000 chariots
and 12,000 horseman (I Kings 4:26).

As in the case with his father, David, modern archaeology simply have no
evidence for this empire nor any of his supposed architectural undertakings.
Solomon’s Temple
is described in details in I Kings 6 yet despite the extensive archaeological
digs in the city, in the words of archaeologist John Laughlin, “not a single
piece of this building has been found.” [7] There is
also no sign of any of the other grand architectural works that he supposedly
built; his palace, or the fortifications at Jerusalem,
Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. [8]

Discoveries in the earlier part of the twentieth century that supposedly
showed the extensive building network of Solomon has been discredited by modern
research.

In the 1920’s and 1930’s an expedition to Megiddo
was made by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
On the lowest level of the excavation, they found two sets of buildings. Each
of these buildings have long chambers connected to one another. Inside each
chamber are two low partition walls made up of pillars and throughs (like
mechanical gears spread out horizontally). This was identified by one of the
leaders of the expedition, P.L.O. Guy, as the famed stables of King Solomon. He
based his interpretation on passages in I Kings which mentioned Solomon’s
building techniques, his activity at Megiddo and his cities for chariots and
horseman (I Kings 7:2, 9:15, 9:19, 10:26). He even counted the stalls for
horses (450) and shed for chariots (150). [9]

However things got a little more complicated soon after. In the 1960’s
further excavations were done at Megiddo.
Below the layer of the “stables” were found buildings with architecture which
parallels a distinctive (and common) Syrian palace architectural style known as
bit hilani. This architecture was similar to the one discovered in Hazor
in the 1950’s which was attributed also to Solomon. This means that the
“stables” being on a higher stratum could not have been from the time of
Solomon. Since then even the building at Hazor have been proven to be of a later
date than Solomon. For one thing bit hilani palaces appear in Syria only in
the early ninth century BCE, after the time of Solomon. How could a copy
preceed the original? Finally improved dating methods with architectural
styles, pottery and carbon-14 have supported the conclusion that the buildings
discovered at Hazor and Megiddo
date to the early 9th century BCE. Long after the death of Solomon! [10]

We are also told that Solomon was a skilled diplomat and that his
influenced was felt outside his empire as well. Yet this is no corroborated by
any extra-Biblical sources. In no ancient Near Eastern text do we hear even a
whisper about Solomon’s great kingdom. He was supposed to have married the
Pharaoh’s daughter and secured an alliance with Egypt (I Kings 3:1), yet we find no
reference to this in contemporaneous Egyptian records. This silence is
deafening. It speaks volumes against the historicity of the description of the
extend of Solomon’s empire and influence. [11]

The archaological evidence on the population, settlement patterns and
economic resources of Judah
mentioned in the section on David extends to the time of Solomon also. As the archaeologists Finkelstein
and Silberman succintly put it:

As
far as we can see on the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah
remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very
marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no
major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages and
towns. [12]

The archaeological evidence shows that Jerusalem rose in prominence only in the
ninth century BCE when the united monarchy had split back into two parts. Jerusalem was, at best,
only a small town during the time of David and Solomon. It may have been the
capital of Judah but it was
never the capital of Israel.
[13]

Like the story of his father, David, the story of Solomon told in the
Bible is a piece of historical fiction.

The
discovery of the “Tel Dan Stela” in 1993, a ninth century BCE inscription
seems to clinch this. The inscriptions tells of the invasion of Israel by Hazael, King of Damascus around 835 BCE. In the inscription
is written how this king slew the king who was of “The House of David”. (See
Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, p128-129; Laughlin,
Archaeology and the Bible, p122 and Sturgis, It Ain’t Necessarily So,
p.162-164)